[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12618?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16220202#comment-16220202
]
Wellington Chevreuil commented on HDFS-12618:
---------------------------------------------
Thanks for the comments [~daryn].
bq. Ignoring my rejection, I'm not even sure the logic for checking just the
first block is even correct in light of truncate and append.
I was not aware of the implications of truncate/append. Given this check is
just relevant for files that had been deleted and reside on snapshots only,
would it still be a possibility for these files to be truncated/appended?
bq. I'm not a lambda expect, but creating a primitive array that requires
forced casting of indexed element appears to be an abuse of the construct. The
wrapping and unwrapping of IOEs as suppressed exceptions embedded in
RuntimeExceptions in an apparent attempt to thwart checked dependencies is also
unnecessary and appears related to the lamba construct.
That was an attempt to use built-in *java.util.function.Consumer* interface,
that defines only one parameter on its accept method and throws no Exception.
Indeed, looking further into lambda API, I guess this can be sorted by creating
an own *@FunctionalInterface* that defines the types and checked exceptions
needed by *check* and *checkFilesInSnapshotOnly* methods.
> fsck -includeSnapshots reports wrong amount of total blocks
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-12618
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-12618
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: tools
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha3
> Reporter: Wellington Chevreuil
> Assignee: Wellington Chevreuil
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HDFS-121618.initial, HDFS-12618.001.patch,
> HDFS-12618.002.patch
>
>
> When snapshot is enabled, if a file is deleted but is contained by a
> snapshot, *fsck* will not reported blocks for such file, showing different
> number of *total blocks* than what is exposed in the Web UI.
> This should be fine, as *fsck* provides *-includeSnapshots* option. The
> problem is that *-includeSnapshots* option causes *fsck* to count blocks for
> every occurrence of a file on snapshots, which is wrong because these blocks
> should be counted only once (for instance, if a 100MB file is present on 3
> snapshots, it would still map to one block only in hdfs). This causes fsck to
> report much more blocks than what actually exist in hdfs and is reported in
> the Web UI.
> Here's an example:
> 1) HDFS has two files of 2 blocks each:
> {noformat}
> $ hdfs dfs -ls -R /
> drwxr-xr-x - root supergroup 0 2017-10-07 21:21 /snap-test
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root supergroup 209715200 2017-10-07 20:16 /snap-test/file1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root supergroup 209715200 2017-10-07 20:17 /snap-test/file2
> drwxr-xr-x - root supergroup 0 2017-05-13 13:03 /test
> {noformat}
> 2) There are two snapshots, with the two files present on each of the
> snapshots:
> {noformat}
> $ hdfs dfs -ls -R /snap-test/.snapshot
> drwxr-xr-x - root supergroup 0 2017-10-07 21:21
> /snap-test/.snapshot/snap1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root supergroup 209715200 2017-10-07 20:16
> /snap-test/.snapshot/snap1/file1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root supergroup 209715200 2017-10-07 20:17
> /snap-test/.snapshot/snap1/file2
> drwxr-xr-x - root supergroup 0 2017-10-07 21:21
> /snap-test/.snapshot/snap2
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root supergroup 209715200 2017-10-07 20:16
> /snap-test/.snapshot/snap2/file1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root supergroup 209715200 2017-10-07 20:17
> /snap-test/.snapshot/snap2/file2
> {noformat}
> 3) *fsck -includeSnapshots* reports 12 blocks in total (4 blocks for the
> normal file path, plus 4 blocks for each snapshot path):
> {noformat}
> $ hdfs fsck / -includeSnapshots
> FSCK started by root (auth:SIMPLE) from /127.0.0.1 for path / at Mon Oct 09
> 15:15:36 BST 2017
> Status: HEALTHY
> Number of data-nodes: 1
> Number of racks: 1
> Total dirs: 6
> Total symlinks: 0
> Replicated Blocks:
> Total size: 1258291200 B
> Total files: 6
> Total blocks (validated): 12 (avg. block size 104857600 B)
> Minimally replicated blocks: 12 (100.0 %)
> Over-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %)
> Under-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %)
> Mis-replicated blocks: 0 (0.0 %)
> Default replication factor: 1
> Average block replication: 1.0
> Missing blocks: 0
> Corrupt blocks: 0
> Missing replicas: 0 (0.0 %)
> {noformat}
> 4) Web UI shows the correct number (4 blocks only):
> {noformat}
> Security is off.
> Safemode is off.
> 5 files and directories, 4 blocks = 9 total filesystem object(s).
> {noformat}
> I would like to work on this solution, will propose an initial solution
> shortly.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org
